Last word additions to closed thread by 'The Management'

[Sir Velo]

And I'm not very happy about people slagging off presenters here, when it's FoR3's policy not to do so. Those with longer memories will remember the (admittedly malicious) accusations that FoR3 was orchestrating a 'hate campaign' against Radio 3 presenters when we were trying to prevent it.

But, and it's meant seriously, the softly softly approach hasn't had any noticeably beneficial impact on the way in which R3 is presented. If anything, the presentation style has become ever more antipathetic to the majority, I suspect, on these boards. Perhaps it is time to take a more obviously confrontational approach - that is if we want anything to change.

[Sir Velo]

And I'm not very happy about people slagging off presenters here, when it's FoR3's policy not to do so. Those with longer memories will remember the (admittedly malicious) accusations that FoR3 was orchestrating a 'hate campaign' against Radio 3 presenters when we were trying to prevent it.

But, and it's meant seriously, the softly softly approach hasn't had any noticeably beneficial impact on the way in which R3 is presented. If anything, the presentation style has become ever more antipathetic to the majority, I suspect, on these boards. Perhaps it is time to take a more obviously confrontational approach - that is if we want anything to change.

[P. G. Tipps]

For some confrontation/robust discussion is a milieu they enjoy (accompanied by bonhomie/femie, erudition etc), but for some people contention is not what they seek, and they seem to be in the majority here.

Personally I miss the dynamics of intellectual confontations that were part of the old P&CA Forum, I thought they produced some very interesting discussions (as well as the nose-thumbing, which seems to be the problem). but I sympathise with FF not wanting to furnish a platform for those interactions if, as she says, they are detrimental to the cause that she set the forum up for. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, even if not my preferred state of affairs.

I think you make an excellent point. Despite its shortcomings the old P&CA board was an educational as well as fun place at times and, despite the occasional abuse to which I referred earlier, there is surely nothing wrong with a bit of point-scoring banter?

The fact has to be faced that some members are clearly more sensitive about discussing politics, religion, etc than others and FF is clearly unhappy with some of the less constructive if mostly harmless exchanges. My attitttude has always been that it is her forum and she alone determines the rules. That is only right.

Simple as that, really ... so members can simply like it or lump it!

[P. G. Tipps]

For some confrontation/robust discussion is a milieu they enjoy (accompanied by bonhomie/femie, erudition etc), but for some people contention is not what they seek, and they seem to be in the majority here.

Personally I miss the dynamics of intellectual confontations that were part of the old P&CA Forum, I thought they produced some very interesting discussions (as well as the nose-thumbing, which seems to be the problem). but I sympathise with FF not wanting to furnish a platform for those interactions if, as she says, they are detrimental to the cause that she set the forum up for. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, even if not my preferred state of affairs.

I think you make an excellent point. Despite its shortcomings the old P&CA board was an educational as well as fun place at times and, despite the occasional abuse to which I referred earlier, there is surely nothing wrong with a bit of point-scoring banter?

The fact has to be faced that some members are clearly more sensitive about discussing politics, religion, etc than others and FF is clearly unhappy with some of the less constructive if mostly harmless exchanges. My attitttude has always been that it is her forum and she alone determines the rules. That is only right.

Simple as that, really ... so members can simply like it or lump it!

[french frank]

But, and it's meant seriously, the softly softly approach hasn't had any noticeably beneficial impact on the way in which R3 is presented. If anything, the presentation style has become ever more antipathetic to the majority, I suspect, on these boards. Perhaps it is time to take a more obviously confrontational approach - that is if we want anything to change.

I can assure you, there have been/are people who do just that. That hasn't done any good either. It's the same point really. If you want to try that approach, do. Just do it somewhere else :-)

[french frank]

But, and it's meant seriously, the softly softly approach hasn't had any noticeably beneficial impact on the way in which R3 is presented. If anything, the presentation style has become ever more antipathetic to the majority, I suspect, on these boards. Perhaps it is time to take a more obviously confrontational approach - that is if we want anything to change.

I can assure you, there have been/are people who do just that. That hasn't done any good either. It's the same point really. If you want to try that approach, do. Just do it somewhere else :-)

[LeMartinPecheur]

But, and it's meant seriously, the softly softly approach hasn't had any noticeably beneficial impact on the way in which R3 is presented. If anything, the presentation style has become ever more antipathetic to the majority, I suspect, on these boards.

It's very rarely possible to prove 'beneficial impacts' and what caused them. Assuming for the sake of argument the truth of the proposition that 'the way in which R3 is presented' hasn't got any better, it remains perfectly possible that this forum and/or FoR3 have stopped it getting vastly worse. That in my book would still count as a beneficial impact!

[LeMartinPecheur]

But, and it's meant seriously, the softly softly approach hasn't had any noticeably beneficial impact on the way in which R3 is presented. If anything, the presentation style has become ever more antipathetic to the majority, I suspect, on these boards.

It's very rarely possible to prove 'beneficial impacts' and what caused them. Assuming for the sake of argument the truth of the proposition that 'the way in which R3 is presented' hasn't got any better, it remains perfectly possible that this forum and/or FoR3 have stopped it getting vastly worse. That in my book would still count as a beneficial impact!

[EdgeleyRob]

Perfectly put. I only wish I'd thought of writing it so succinctly.

Me too.

Many thanks ff and team for all your hard work.
I just ignore the bickering nonsense.

[EdgeleyRob]

Perfectly put. I only wish I'd thought of writing it so succinctly.

Me too.

Many thanks ff and team for all your hard work.
I just ignore the bickering nonsense.

[ahinton]

I can assure you, there have been/are people who do just that. That hasn't done any good either. It's the same point really. If you want to try that approach, do. Just do it somewhere else :-)

Indeed - Lebrecht for one, as you point out - so is the only answer to the problems arising from this almost Catch 22 type conundrum for this forum to be renamed with a view to avoiding this confusion in some people's minds?

As to being, or being taken as, a "representative" of this forum, all that I can say is that I would not wish to be regarded as such in respect of any forum of which I am a member (apart, perhaps, from the Sorabji forum, for obvious reasons), not just this one; it should surely be possible - and generally accepted as such - that merely being an active or passive member of a forum is not necessarily indicative of some kind of "representative" status? (which is not to say that I am other than pleased to remain a member of this one as long as you continue to consider that such membership is not inappropriate!)...

[ahinton]

I can assure you, there have been/are people who do just that. That hasn't done any good either. It's the same point really. If you want to try that approach, do. Just do it somewhere else :-)

Indeed - Lebrecht for one, as you point out - so is the only answer to the problems arising from this almost Catch 22 type conundrum for this forum to be renamed with a view to avoiding this confusion in some people's minds?

As to being, or being taken as, a "representative" of this forum, all that I can say is that I would not wish to be regarded as such in respect of any forum of which I am a member (apart, perhaps, from the Sorabji forum, for obvious reasons), not just this one; it should surely be possible - and generally accepted as such - that merely being an active or passive member of a forum is not necessarily indicative of some kind of "representative" status? (which is not to say that I am other than pleased to remain a member of this one as long as you continue to consider that such membership is not inappropriate!)...

[french frank]

is the only answer to the problems arising from this almost Catch 22 type conundrum for this forum to be renamed?

I'm not sure how else we could give the impression that the forum was focused on Radio 3? Te BBC Radio 3 Forum, perhaps?

it should surely be possible - and generally accepted as such - that merely being an active or passive member of a forum is not necessarily indicative of some kind of "representative" status?

There is no way to force everyone who reads the forum to accept that comments posted here are not representative of FoR3 and/or its supporters. The homepage displays fairly prominently the words: "This is NOT the official messageboard of Friends of Radio 3 […] Opinions expressed on any part of The Radio 3 Forum are those of members of the public, not of the forum administration or of FoR3."

One would have thought that was clear enough.

[french frank]

is the only answer to the problems arising from this almost Catch 22 type conundrum for this forum to be renamed?

I'm not sure how else we could give the impression that the forum was focused on Radio 3? Te BBC Radio 3 Forum, perhaps?

it should surely be possible - and generally accepted as such - that merely being an active or passive member of a forum is not necessarily indicative of some kind of "representative" status?

There is no way to force everyone who reads the forum to accept that comments posted here are not representative of FoR3 and/or its supporters. The homepage displays fairly prominently the words: "This is NOT the official messageboard of Friends of Radio 3 […] Opinions expressed on any part of The Radio 3 Forum are those of members of the public, not of the forum administration or of FoR3."

One would have thought that was clear enough.

[ahinton]

I'm not sure how else we could give the impression that the forum was focused on Radio 3? Te BBC Radio 3 Forum, perhaps?

There is no way to force everyone who reads the forum to accept that comments posted here are not representative of FoR3 and/or its supporters. The homepage displays fairly prominently the words: "This is NOT the official messageboard of Friends of Radio 3 […] Opinions expressed on any part of The Radio 3 Forum are those of members of the public, not of the forum administration or of FoR3."

One would have thought that was clear enough.

It is - to people who read it!